SHORT AND LONGER-TERM PLANETARY EFFECTS ON SUN

AND EARTH
by

Kenneth W. Dickman; farmer emeritus

Reprinted from

ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 17 No. 1 2006

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 63

SHORT AND LONGER-TERM PLANETARY EFFECTS ON

SUN AND EARTH
Kenneth W. Dickman; farmer emeritus
Email: goldco9@tpg.com.au

ABSTRACT
The Solar Electro-magnetic Resonant Cross provides the key to timing of major
events on Sun and Earth. Planet/Cross alignments, together with specific
interplanetary angular separations, coincided with the seismic events on 24/26
December 2004, of which an outcome was the Asian Tsunami. Planetary
conjunctions also coincided with peak sunspot abundance on 30 March 2001,
precipitous decay of the giant 1997/8 El Niño in May 1998, and beginning/end
(1645/1715) of the last prominent cold period of the Little Ice Age, the Maunder
Minimum. Cross and influential angularities promise to be as revealing for the
future as the past; because orbits can be calculated in advance. A sharp
enhancement of planetary influence on Sun/Earth can be expected in June 2006.

1. INTRODUCTION
Nothing is really new
The concept of a solar driver for human affairs is far from new. When heretic pharaoh
Akhenaten came to power in 1352BC, he proclaimed the Sun to be the dominant
influence on the well-being of Egypt. But the official standing of this eminently
plausible hypothesis did not survive the lifetimes of him and Nefertiti. Renewed
support for the Sun had to await the observational evidence of variable solar activity
enabled by Galileo’s telescope. Within 200 years, the obvious correlation between
events on Sun and Earth had closed a 3,000-year circle. There is a Sun-Earth
connection.
My paper goes a step further, by seeking the underlying driver for this connection.
Nothing is entirely new, it seems. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich located 276
copies of the 1543 edition of Copernicus’ book On the revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres, and was surprised to find that the part about the Earth going around the Sun
attracted little attention from peers. Annotations were concentrated on pages relating
to the calculation of planetary orbits. Astronomers were seeking an easier way to do
this time-consuming task than had been afforded by the Second Century Ptolemaic
system of prediction. Planets have long been seen as influential. But how?

Introducing Mercury
I challenge current theories about the Sun; and offer a reason why it is affected by
planetary alignments. Mercury is crucial. It is by far the closest planet, with an orbital
64 Energy & Environment · Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006

period of 88 days (next-in-line Venus has a period of 225 days). Furthermore, it has a
notably elliptical orbit, matched only by that of distant Pluto. Mercury’s orbital
eccentricity is 0.206 (cf 0.007 for its stay-at-home neighbour, Venus), and its closest
approach to the Sun is when at an azimuth of 75° – by the conventional 360° solar-
centred rose on which planetary positions are plotted. Mercury’s frequent close
approach provides the starting point for an electro-magnetic resonance in the Sun,
which is also evident 43 days later when the planet has moved by 180° – to the
opposing resonant position at 225°.
This phenomenon is visible as extensions of magnetised plasma from the solar
corona in a four-leaf-clover pattern (which can be replicated by permanent magnets
placed near a television screen). It appears that there are four resonant positions 90°
apart; and each is visited in turn by Mercury average 22-day intervals. Clearly, the Sun
is in a permanent state of resonance – and its ringing is dramatically enhanced as
additional planets pass through one of these four resonant alignments. When viewed
from ‘above’ (from a vantage point above the Sun’s North Pole – ie. directly above its
axis of rotation) these alignments form a cross on the Sun’s equatorial plane.

When will it rain?

Like all Australian farmers, I had a question uppermost in my mind: When is it going
to rain? The conclusions of my 26 years of research and analysis were recently tested
on Australia’s Gold Coast, where water supply remains a heated issue in times of

TV screen influenced by permanent magnets. This image serves as the speculative

surrogate (viewed from above the Sun’s pole) for a four-lobed beam of magnetised
plasma radiating “horizontally” onto the ecliptic plane, as maintained by resonant
excitation from near-orbiting Mercury.
Short and Longer-term Planetary Effects on Sun and Earth 65

current drought. My prediction for future rainfall featured in a local newspaper on 12

July 2002. The article related how weather patterns are a consequence of the factors
affecting sunspots; and the parched Gold Coast could expect dam-filling rains, most
likely at the end of 2003. I included a caveat – no volcanic eruption should eventuate
in the near-Asian region to mask impacts associated with my predicted high sunspot
numbers.
In the event, there were no major volcanics; and as predicted; the Hinze Dam
catchment received sufficient rain in December 2003 – March 2004 to lift water-
storage levels to 70–80% of capacity. Was this proof at last of my theories? No, of
course not. But I was encouraged; and this paper is the result.

2. METHODOLOGY
Landscheidt paper
On the galactic scale, our solar system is a ball of magnetised plasma, now crossing
the Sagittarius-Carina arm of the Milky Way. The solar wind keeps this ball
(heliosphere) inflated, and hence affords an inhabited planet a modicum of protection
from galactic influences. But inside the heliosphere, there are complex inertial and
electro-magnetic relationships which affect the Sun and all the planets. Already in this
Journal (Landscheidt 2003), an important element of the planetary connection with
Earth and Sun has been elucidated.
That ground-breaking paper helps explain the variability of the solar wind, and
hence the degree to which bombarding cosmic rays can enter our atmosphere. The Sun
and giant outer planets (moving outward: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – plus
tiny Pluto) orbit the centre-of-mass of the solar system (barycentre). Much of the
system’s angular momentum is held by these giants, and their collective orbital
progress applies a variable torque to the Sun, thus driving its irregular orbit. Rapid
rate-of-change of applied torque correlates with increased solar eruptive activity, and
a more powerful solar wind.
It has been hypothesised that a stronger solar wind means a better-protected Earth,
which means, in turn, reduced penetration of the atmosphere by ionising cosmic rays.
Greater influx of electro-magnetic energy also serves to accelerate precipitation of pre-
existing atmospheric ions. Both influences should reduce cloud-forming nucleation,
cloudiness, albedo (reflectivity), and enable an increased quantity of the little-varying
solar radiant-energy to reach the surface. The result would be a warmer Earth.
Landscheidt calculated that there will be a decrease in the rate of change of solar
torque, and hence the incidence of coronal eruptions, in the decades immediately
ahead. Correlation with similar low-torque periods in the palaeoclimatic record,
indicates the likely development of cool conditions – such as in the Maunder
Minimum of the Little Ice Age – by 2030. People starved then.
The work described above, dealt primarily with momentum effects and their
outcome. But there are also other planetary influences on Sun and Earth of a
dominantly electro-magnetic nature. While these too involve the outer giants, they also
confer a vital role on the small inner planets which orbit the Sun directly (moving
outward: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars). These effects are described below.
66 Energy & Environment · Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006

New concepts
There are two separate types of planetary conjunction which appear to be particularly
influential – based on their observed concordance in timing with known solar/terrestrial
events. Correlations are not proof; and unreserved acceptance their message must be
deferred until that happy time when understanding catches up with observation.
First is the Angular Separation (AS) of planets, with respect to a circle at the plane
on which the planets orbit (ecliptic) and centred on the Sun. When two planets occupy
relative angular positions on the orbital plane yielding separations such as 0, 30, 60,
72, 90, 120 and 180 degrees (divisible into the 360° whole) resonance is the result.
Second is the Solar Electro-magnetic Resonant Cross (SER-X) where any planet
arriving at an azimuth of 75, 165, 255 and 345 degrees (forming the arms of a cross),
causes enhanced resonance. SER-X alignments have an impact on sunspot abundance;
and also are likely to draw a detectable response from Earth.
The combination of AS and SER-X facilitates the release of energy from the Sun,
as evidenced (albeit perhaps, counter-intuitively) by decreasing sunspot prevalence at
that precise time. Other contributing factors also relate to planetary orbits. An outer
planet with a slow angular velocity (giant Uranus has an orbital period of 84 years, cf.
Earth’s one year) holds a SER-X alignment for longer than does an inner planet. A
planet’s influence is also likely to be greater when closest to the Sun (perihelion), and
longer-lasting when farthest away (aphelion).
By convention, Earth’s position relative to the Sun at the 22–23 September Equinox
marks the point of zero azimuth on the solar-centred celestial circle, viewed with a
Northern Hemisphere perspective. Earth moves (anti-clockwise, as do all planets) to
the75° SER-X azimuth – corresponding to Mercury’s perihelion – at 7–8 December.
Unsurprisingly, December is a time of unsettled conditions for Earthlings.

New puzzles
Stopping there would leave us with a not-simple, but not-too-complicated, message. But
in truth, observational evidence suggests a profoundly complex picture. The angular
dimension of a SER-X position inflates in accordance with the greater distance of the
triggering planet from the Sun. In the case of proximate Mercury (at 0.4 Angstrom Unit),
resonant contact is maintained while the planet moves through one degree of its orbital
progress. Further out, Jupiter (5.2 AU) appears to maintain solar excitement over 1.5°.
However, on reaching distant Pluto (34.4 AU), the single observation as yet available
indicates that resonance was enhanced for a period of over four years, as the planet
travelled from 5° before, to 5° after, the SER-X position of 255°.
But there is another, even more complicating, observational puzzle to be confronted.
Sunspots are readily visible from Earth – as is their progress across the face of the Sun.
The Sun’s rate of rotation varies; and the solar day is about 24 Earth days at its equator,
extending to over 30 days at the poles. As one might expect, sunspots are stationary;
and their apparent movement is explained by solar rotation. But the highly-variable
‘beam’ of energetic particles ejected from the four Mercury-dictated SER-X portals is
fixed relative to the solar-centred plane on which planetary orbits are described. In
direct contradiction to sunspots, in celestial terms they are stationary; but in solar terms
they rotate. Clearly, scientific understanding has much catching-up to do.
Short and Longer-term Planetary Effects on Sun and Earth 67

Example: the 2001 sunspot peak

Sunspots provide a readily-observable and convenient proxy for solar eruptive
activity, and hence for the intensity of the solar wind. Whitehouse (2005), and many
others, carry plots of sunspot observations back to the introduction of telescopes to
observatories in the early 1600s. Observations reveal, after a virtual absence from
1645 to 1715, prominent 9–13 year cyclicity in sunspot abundance, which still
continues. A paper in this very volume (Archibald 2006, Figure 1), illustrates past and
projected cycles.
Soon and Yaskell (2003) tell us that as early as 1800, William Herschel had noted
a correlation between diminished sunspot prevalence and low-crop-yield years in
England. Herschel subsequently read at a sceptical Royal Society the paper on his
findings, thus elevating from astrology to astronomy the concept of an Earth subject
to external influences.
Little Pluto, which has a long period (248 years) and an eccentric orbit, has
remained relatively close to its perihelion for the past 30 or so years. Figure 1
illustrates planetary relationships in March 2001. Pluto was in the SER-X position at
255°; and massive Jupiter was 180° away straight through the Sun – in the SER-X
position at 75°. There would have been a powerful enhancement of solar resonance,
although with Jupiter’s orbital period of 12 years, it could not have been narrowly
circumscribed in time.
Why then was there a record sunspot count (352) on the 30th day of March? I
speculate that it was because of the additional impetus provided at that time by a short-

Figure 1: Record sunspot count, 30 March 2001. Jupiter and Pluto were in
diametrically-opposed SER-X positions. They and Earth, Venus, Neptune, Mars and
Mercury were also in an unusually-large series of resonant angular separations.
68 Energy & Environment · Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006

term assemblage of specific angular separations. As can be seen in Figure 1, Earth and
Venus (period 0.6 yr), both rapidly-orbiting planets, shared an angular position 60°
from Pluto, and 120° from Neptune. Also, Mars had an AS of 30° from Pluto and 72°
from rapidly-orbiting Mercury (period 0.24 yr); and, as already mentioned, Jupiter and
Pluto had an AS of 180°. In addition, Pluto was 30° and Jupiter 60° past perihelion,
and Saturn 30° before it. (The perihelion locations of all planets are shown on the
circumference of the celestial chart in Figure 1.)
Is this a valid explanation, or an opportunistic reliance on coincidence? I say it
would be more of a coincidence for such a remarkable assemblage of resonant
angularities to have had no detectable physical outcome.

3. PLANETARY CONTEXT FOR ASIAN TSUNAMI

On 24 December 2004, an earthquake of 8.1 R (Richter Scale) magnitude was
recorded beneath the Southern Ocean some 800 km SE of Hobart. Happily, there was
no damage. However, a following (9.3 R) ‘quake under the Indian Ocean on 26
December led to the devastating Asian Tsunami. Those who attributed the triggering
of this seismic sea-wave to human decadence, or indeed any terrestrial cause, were
probably mistaken. Figure 2 provides a more-plausible explanation.
The scene was set by a series of contributing factors: On the 24th, Saturn (period 29
yrs) was only 10° past its 93° perihelion; and Earth was at 93° – only 10 days before its

Figure 2: Asian Tsunami, 26 December 2004. Angular separations of 60° between

Earth and Mercury, and between Mercury and Venus/Mars, were present at the time
of the first earthquake on the 24th; an AS of 120° also existed between the latter pair
and Uranus. Rapidly-orbiting Mercury had reached SER-X of 165° by the time of the
second ‘quake on the 26th’.
Short and Longer-term Planetary Effects on Sun and Earth 69

own perihelion. Pluto was still in a 4-yr 74° angular relationship with Uranus (period
84 yrs) – which was itself approaching aphelion. A notable AS also existed at that time
between Earth-Mercury-Venus/Mars with their 60° separations being the identical
harmonic of the orbital circumference. At this time, the first ‘quake was triggered.
Two days later, fast orbiting Mercury (90° past perihelion) attained the 165° SER-
X position. This was the very day of the second ‘quake – when the lithosphere would
still have been ringing with the shock of the first. Coincidence? We shall never know.
But there is disinterested corroboration – from none other than the Sun. A remarkable
change in sunspot abundance was observed over the crucial period. It went from 47 on
the 23rd, down to only 11 on the 27th; and by the 31st, it had rebounded to 60. Well-
understood or not, extra-terrestrial influences were in evidence at that fateful time.

4. ABRUPT END TO 1997/8 EL NIÑO

As described elsewhere in this volume (McLean 2006), the El Niño/La Niña (ENSO)
alternation is a crucial determinant of rainfall in water-short Australia. The seasonal
nature of the variable upwelling which drives Pacific sea-surface temperature (SST) is
well illustrated by Guilderson and Schrag (1998, Figure 2); and a detailed analysis of
the great 1997/8 El Niño is also presented herein (Kininmonth 2006), in which the
wider climatic implications of such events are explained.
The growth, maturity, and collapse of this prominent climatic event is enshrined in
the SST record from a buoy on the equator at 125° W longitude (McPhaden 2002,
Fig 1–15). Build-up began in normal seasonal fashion in January 1997, with SST
rising from an atypically cool 23°C to the warm-season norm of 27°C by March. In a
‘neutral’ ENSO year, SST would have risen no further; and then, renewed upwelling
in the eastern equatorial Pacific would have caused cooling to 24°C by August.
However, in this case, SST continued to rise (albeit at a lower rate) to attain a needle-
peak of almost 30°C in early May 1998.
A sudden reversal then took place. By the end of the month, SST was back to
23°C – thus over-shooting the seasonal cooling expected several months later in a time
of neutral regime. At this equatorial site, SST fell by a climatically-significant 6+°C
in less than a month! In November, full La Niña conditions arrived, after a second
(lesser) cooling step took SST to below 21°C.
Figure 3 shows planetary conjunctions on 12 May 1998. The El Niño appears to
have been in part an outcome of the 60° AS between Pluto and Uranus; but their
separation had widened to 64°, suggesting that this resonance had now been lost. But,
many new influences emerged. Earth enjoyed close to a 72° AS from Mercury, Venus
and Neptune; and, equally significant, Jupiter had achieved SER-X of 345°. Lastly, all
planets were on the same side of the Sun, travelling in the same direction with Earth
trailing the field. A reduced bow-shock for Earth’s protective magnetosphere would
have been a possible outcome.
The abrupt decay of the giant 97/8 El Niño in May 1998, and its subsequent
replacement by a fully-developed La Niña in the following November, may have been
the direct result of sharp changes in planetary alignments. Implausible? Maybe so. But
any exclusively-Earth-bound explanation so far proffered up for this remarkable
reversal, is even more implausible.
70 Energy & Environment · Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006

Figure 3: Abrupt El Niño/La Niña reversal, 12 May 1998. All planets were on the
same side of the Sun, with Earth last in line; and there was a 72° angular separation
between Earth and Neptune/Venus/Mercury. Jupiter was on SER-X at 345°.

5. MAUNDER MINIMUM WAS EXTRA-TERRESTRIALLY DRIVEN

The latter millennia of the present (Holocene) Interglacial have exhibited a cooling
trend, overprinted by a ca. 1500-year warmer-cooler cyclicity. In the temperate
Northern Hemisphere its most-recent manifestations were the climatic/historical
Roman Empire Warm Period (Romans in England), Dark Ages (Germanics in Italy),
Mediaeval Warm Period (Vikings in Greenland) and Little Ice Age (LIA).
The LIA was prominently twin-troughed (Wang et al 2005); and its Spörer and
Maunder cold periods were times of great hardship in Europe. The Maunder
Minimum, for which we have the better records, took the form of an intermittent series
of very cold winters. The subsequent 300-year trend to present-day warmth, has been
interrupted by three progressively less-and-less severe cold intervals at 1800–20
(Dalton Minimum), 1880–1910, and 1950–75. There is little doubt that the timing of
LIA minima correlates with variation in sunspot abundance and cosmic ray flux
(Usoskin et al 2005). But what is their underlying driver? Why, for instance, were
there almost no sunspots between 1645 and 1715?
I now introduce the culprit. Pluto, with its huge orbit, was in its aphelion; and it
simultaneously held a SER-X position (Figure 4). Neptune was also in aphelion; and
it also held a SER-X position. With Uranus heading towards its aphelion as well, the
Sun appeared to lose contact with the outer planets. By 1715, however, conjunctions
were dramatically different. Two of the outer planets were in perihelion (Uranus,
Neptune), while Pluto had travelled 90 degrees to hold the next SER-X position (the
only time a simultaneous occurrence of this type has been noted). These outer planets
Short and Longer-term Planetary Effects on Sun and Earth 71

Figure 4: Outer planets during the Maunder Minimum. In 1645, Pluto and Neptune
were 180° apart, both in SER-X positions and on aphelion – with Uranus
approaching aphelion. By 1715, Pluto had moved to another SER-X position, and
both Uranus and Neptune were now on perihelion.

were back! The Sun was re-energised; and the 300-year warming trend we still enjoy
had begun.
My analysis above does no violence to Landscheidt’s currency. He dealt in the rate-
of-change of torque applied to the Sun by the collective orbital motions of the outer
planets. An individual planet’s influence is greatest when its angular velocity is
greatest – at or near perihelion; and the combined influence of two planets is greatest
as one passes the other. At its simplest, planets in aphelion ‘switched off’ the Sun in
1645, and planets at perihelion switched it on again in 1715. The Maunder Minimum
“quiet Sun” can be thus explained; and there is little reason to doubt that this notable
climatic event occurred, and that it was extra-terrestrially driven.

6. FURTHER POSITIVE CORRELATIONS

Computer analysis identifying significant angular relationships, in conjunction with
my theories of planet/SER-X alignments, enables identification of solar-induced
terrestrial disasters. When multiple planets connect in resonance-positive AS around
the Sun, and with at least one planet holding a SER-X position, the result can be chaos
on Earth. The following notable events correlate with SER-X alignments:

• Volcanic eruptions – Tambora 1815; Krakatau 1883; Pelée 1902; St. Helens 1980;
Pinatubo 1991.
• Earthquakes – San Francisco 1906 and 1989; Kobe 1995; Asian Tsunami 2004.
72 Energy & Environment · Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006

• Long-distance power line overloads – Quebec 11–17 March 1989; USA 10–12
January 1997 and 14–15 August 2003.

7. WARNING – UNUSUAL CONJUNCTIONS IN JUNE 2006

As shown in Figure 5, there will be a remarkable four planets holding SER-X positions
on 6–7 June 2006. I am not familiar with a previous such event. Mercury will be at
SER-X directly opposite Venus/Uranus; and Earth will hold SER-X at right angles.

Figure 5: Exceptional planetary conjunctions on 6–7 June 2006. No less than four
SER-X alignments will happen simultaneously – Mercury at 165° , Earth at 255°,
and both Venus and Uranus at 345°. In addition, there will be several angular
separations: Venus-Uranus 0°, Saturn-Mercury 30°, Mercury-Jupiter 60°,
Mercury-Earth 90°, Saturn-Jupiter and Jupiter-Neptune ca. 90°, Mars-Pluto ca. 120°,
and Mercury-Venus/Uranus 180°.

Furthermore, there will be a plethora of resonant angles in force. For instance, fast-
orbiting Mercury will have an AS, not only of 180°C with Venus and Uranus, but of
30° with Saturn, 60° with Jupiter, and 90° with Earth. Other less-precise conjunctions
include 94° Saturn-Jupiter, 118° Mars-Pluto, and 92° Jupiter-Neptune.
Because of the directional nature of solar energetic outbursts, particularly coronal
mass ejections, we cannot be sure that Earth will be involved. However, another
earthquake is among the possibilities. But what value is an alert which gives timing
without location? Recent advances may help. Earthquake prediction, based on
atmospheric factors, is under development. It appears that satellite-aided detection of
cloud lineaments along known fault lines may offer one or two day’s notice. Lives
could be saved.
Short and Longer-term Planetary Effects on Sun and Earth 73

8. CONCLUSIONS
• Energy distribution in the solar system varies because of planetary dynamics.
• Any analysis of cause and effect for observed natural events on Earth is
incomplete, unless and until it includes recognition of appropriately-timed extra-
terrestrial forcing.
• Inevitably, projection of human wellbeing across the century ahead is bound to be
false and misleading, should it exclude consideration of the potential for short and
longer-term planetary influences upon terrestrial fortunes.

REFERENCES
Archibald, David C. 2006, “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response”, Energy &
Environment v. 17 no. 1 (in press).
Guilderson, J. T. and Daniel P. Schrag 1998, “Abrupt shift in subsurface temperatures in the
tropical Pacific associated with changes in El Niño”, Science v. 281 pp. 240–3.
Kininmonth, William 2006, “The El Niño phenomenon in the context of climate change”,
Energy & Environment v. 17 no. 1 (in press).
Landscheidt, Theodor 2003, “New Little Ice Age instead of global warming?”, Energy &
Environment v. 14 no. 2, 3 pp. 327–50.
McLean, John D. 2006, “A critical review of Australian climate reports”, Energy &
Environment v. 17 no. 1 (in press).
McPhaden, Michael J. 2002, “El Niño, La Niña, and the climate swings of 1997–98”, pp. 25–30
in Michael H Glantz (Ed) “La Niña and its impacts: facts and speculation”, United Nations
University Press 271 p.
Soon, Willie Wei-Hock and Steven H. Yaskell 2003, “The Maunder Minimum and the variable
Sun-Earth connection”, World Scientific 278 p.
Usoskin et al 2005, “Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennial-scale
comparison”, J. Geophys. Res v. 110, A10102, doi:10.1029/2004JA010946, 11 p.
Wang, Yongjin et al 2005, “The Holocene Asian Monsoon: links to solar changes and North
Atlantic climate”, Science v. 308 pp. 854–7.
Whitehouse, David 2005, “The Sun: a biography”, Wiley 334 p.